someone converting a freighter for a dedicated run would do modifications similar to what SVC described. I have the deck plans and will go over them to resolve specific capabilities.

remember that what you want is a tunnel deck with double wide doors so that you can have all these civilian pilots (or their autopilots) fly in, land at the specified spot and fly out again afterwords.

anything that requires moving them around after landing is probably to complicated, in current techonology terms you want people to pull on board, park and set their parking brake, then they can either stay in their cars or wander the other decks. shifting back to SFB era, some people would arrive via shuttle, but others would just transport on board so you will need an unusually large accomodations deck compared to the number of shuttles you carry.

since there is no need for support facilities it's possible that the shuttles would be able to land under the 'crowded shuttle bay' SFB rules (I need to look them up). even without valet parking you can pack a lot of vehicles in a small area.

Again look at current ferrys for examples and compare them to helicopter carriers. even accounting for the fact that cars are 1/4 the size of helicopters you still fit FAR more then 4 times as many in the same deck space that is allocated for maintaining and loading the copters.

more details when I write it up after I get a chance to look things up.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 03:30 pm: Edit

Stewarts message brings up two comments from me.
One: I would think that a Commercial Shuttle would be the equivelent to a Lear Jet of today.

Two: This situation begs for a PTC (Personal Transport Craft). Seats Two to Four plus a small amount of storage. Good for inner-system travel only. Though jumping abord a ferry would be some what common. These would be Half the size of a Adminisrative Shuttle (1/2 shuttle box space) and never be armed. (Though in a GPD campain you might be able to RIG one with a phaser/disruptor rifel.)
Cost on a Ferry would be the same as they take up half the space but require that the Passengers take up accomidations on the Ferry.

Owning one would be like owning a Single Engine Cesna today. With the same level of piloting skills.

Any number of designs would be available and players could draw up their own shape guided by a few general rules. Say, Common or Luxury accomidations at one cost, three types of drive systems (Economy fuel usage, standard, Fast). Single or Redundant systems. Aerodynamic or Gravatic/tractor landing systems. Three levels of Aerodynamic stelth. Plus some additional features allowed by the GM. Takes two damage in SFB.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 03:48 pm: Edit

I fully agree that there should be a wide range of civilian shuttlecraft -- as wide as possible. I expect we'll have a page or four in MPA on this subject.

The reason I am loathe to start any serious discussion on this subject is that (if you didn't already know) SFB Module J2, which will in stores very soon -- maybe in a month? -- includes rules and specs for 3- and 4-space shuttlecraft; the existing admin shuttle is 1-space, and heavy shuttles (and fighters) are 2-space.

In SFB, the 3 and 4's are called "bombers" and generally cannot land or take off from a ship, only from the ground or a base. Their major military use is planetary defense.

There are also a couple of civilian/admin versions of these Size Class 6 craft in J2. If there was ever a prototype we needed for what we want, this is it! So I'm going to defer any work on this until J2 is out and we can all see the final version of the specs and rules. I'm also going to copy this message over to the PD SMALL CRAFT topic so we can move this discussion there (hint, hint)!

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Question about the Federation Repeating Phaser:

If I understand the GPD rules right, the Repeating Phaser rifle used by the Federation Marines does NOT have a stun setting. Is this right? I know it's a Marine weapon, but wouldn't there be at least some need for a stun setting on such weapons? This is the Federation we're talking about...they prefer stun when possible.

By the way, do templates/designs exist for larger infantry phasers, akin to a modern TL7 SAW? If not, I'd like a shot at designing one.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 12:33 am: Edit

John: correct, no stun setting. I would agree that this would be controversial, but sometimes you need that kind of lethal force. I would consider the Repeating Phaser to be a heavy weapon.

No one has volunteered to do HW for GPD, so if you want to do it, go ahead. Just use existing GURPS books like UT and UT2 as reference, so our weaponry isn't too far askew from what is already published.

Oh, and we're going to need Klingon stuff, too.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 07:42 am: Edit

---

Quote:

correct, no stun setting. I would agree that this would be controversial, but sometimes you need that kind of lethal force. I would consider the Repeating Phaser to be a heavy weapon.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 10:04 am: Edit

I don't think I realized that the RP doesn't have a stun setting, and I don't think I like that concept.

Consider it to have a single-shot stun mode.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 11:03 am: Edit

Well, over the last month, I've used most of the money I got paid for my CL 24 story to buy a bunch of GURPS stuff so I can learn the system...Basic, UT, UT2, Space, H-T, WW2. It's been my bedstand reading.

I'll work on the heavy weapons. Consider me volunteered for that.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 12:11 pm: Edit

Hey John, if ya want a partner on that, lemme know.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Alex, I'll email you a couple of draft proposals and we can tweak them. I have a better handle on Fed tech than Klingon tech...you want to do the Klink stuff? I'm sure they'd have all kinds of nasty crew-served disruptors....

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 12:48 pm: Edit

How's this for a solution to the Repeating Phaser Stun problem?

Federation Modified Repeating Phaser Rifle (John Sickels, August 8, 2002)
The first M100 Repeating Phaser Rifles issued to the Federation Marines caused some controversy, as they lacked a “stun” setting. The weapons designers intended the weapon to only be used in heavy combat situations, when stun was unlikely to be used, and the stun setting was left off “for reasons of cost.” But some politicians objected to the “offensive” nature of the weapon, and the Chief of the Star Fleet Marines pointed out that even heavily-engaged Marines might need a stun setting in certain tactical situations, and that maximum flexibility would be a major asset. Accordingly, the design (re-designated M100A) was changed to include a “stun-3” setting, and all existing Repeaters (all known copies were in Star Fleet or Marine hands) were modified to include it. The cost increase proved to be negligible. It would be extremely unlikely for characters to find a Repeater in “original” condition, as the design was changed very early in the production run. The Repeater’s rate of fire in stun-3 mode is 5 (equivalent to a normal phaser rifle). Other stats, including cost, are unchanged from the original Repeater listed in GPD.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 12:55 pm: Edit

John, ya can reach me at
mkgarton@msn.com

The disruptor family does need a bit of work. I'd have ideally based them off the blaster rules, with soem mods, but I'm sure we'll figure something out.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 02:23 pm: Edit

I had always planned that the disruptor weapon family would be fleshed out in GREAT detail in GURPS KLINGONS, so I just put enough into GPD to get by with. Go nuts, guys!

As for the Repeating Phaser, we can just say that it has a Stun-3 setting. The "heavy weapon stunner" was originally the Scatter Phaser, which was a leftover from PD1; when SVC said to get rid of it, there was no replacement.

I could easily see a Fed "riot gun" of some kind being added to the game. Maybe an over-and-under gun with a stunner on top and a flashbang/gas grenade launcher underneath (ala M16+M203).

By Anton A. Spletstoser (Asplets) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 10:19 pm: Edit

I notice that the Phaser 1 has only a stun and kill setting, not trying to sound like a total detail freak, but I thought that the Phaser 1 had at least 1 disintegrate setting, that Mugato a certain captain ran into didn't just fall over. Anyway, I think that ADB could cover stuff from TOS and TAS or something like that. And are the "ammo" capacities of the weapons correct? I thought that the phasers would have increasingly larger power packs.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 11:44 pm: Edit

stun, heat, disrupt, disintegrate

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 07:25 am: Edit

Anton: consider that the Phaser-1 is the size of a pack of cigarettes; you cannot physically fit more/larger batteries into it, and that is going to put a limit on how much damage/shots it can do.

When I wrote those stats, they were discussed and the concensus was that they were reasonable.

By Anton A. Spletstoser (Asplets) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 09:28 am: Edit

I realize the size of the phaser 1 isn't much bigger than a small cell phone, but I figure it would at least get disintregrate-1, which would very quickly drain the powerpack, sort of a don't use this setting unless you REALLY have to. As for powerpacks, I think the Phaser pistol and rifle would have slightly larger amounts of power/ammo to draw from and not all have 100 (except for the RP, which has 500), or am I reading the chart wrong?
But I know it's just a game and if the WRITER of the game (yourself) says something, then that will be the official ruling on the matter. BTW I really like the new book and GURPS rules. And I'm glad the old grenade throwing rules are gone.

By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 07:05 pm: Edit

Well, more correctly, whatever makes it into print is the official version -- I can think of several Really Good Ideas in the first draft that got nuked during the review process.

By Robert Herneson (Rherneson) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Anton, make sure to look at all the weapon stats. Note that the Phaser II get increased Range & Rate of Fire for the extra power it puts into things. In essence, the Phaser II gets 300 shots compared to the Phaser I's 100, it just takes them 3 at a time.

Now, how did Kirk get the Mugatu to disintigrate? He was acting as a Legendary Major of Marines. (Yeah, that's it, yeah!)

(Hey Steve, can we get that added to the LMoM's abilities? What? Your submission box is in the agonizer booth now?)

R

By F. Douglas Wall (Knarf) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Comments on weapons and armor included in GPD.

Disruptors only have a disintegrate setting? Even a heavily armored character would barely stand a chance against that kind of firepower. I've found a number of weapons in UT and UT2 that scare my players instead of just outright killing them. Plus, it adds to the flavor of the game like the species specific weapons from PD1 (In fact, I kind of borrowed that idea).

Gauss Weapons for Gorns and Plasma Blasters for Romulans have come in quite handy for me. Unforunately, a phaser can very easily obliterate an opponent in the wrong hands (one of my players). I'm going to have to work up a solution for that one.

Also, the high numbers on all of the weapons and armor presented kind of rule out much in the way of melee fighting. I ended up importing vibroblades to meet this need.

These are items that I have found handy in my campaign. If they could be included in a GPD supplement, that would be ideal.

-Doug

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 09:26 pm: Edit

I believe extra weapons will be added in the various supplements. Additional disruptor types, as well as other racial stuff. The core book was just intended to give you the basic phaser types, and a "bare bones" disruptor.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Indeed, extra stuff is coming in future supplements.

In the meantime, the Ultra-Tech books make great resources. Grab stuff, tweak a little as desired, and drop it on in (hey, that's why we choose GURPS!)

By Richard Brown (Richardb) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 01:48 pm: Edit

As far as importing things from Ultra-Tech 1&2, Doug's coment got me thinking. Force Swords realy aren't in keeping with the SFU style (being inspired by science fantasy taking place far temporaly and spacialy dislocated from the alpha sector) but they are the right TL so I can't help but wondering if they might be posible in with SFU science. Perhaps as a unique weapon for an obscure alien race. They do even beter than vibroblades to cut through heavy armor. Also do races in the SFU have monomolecular edged blades? Gurps stats give monomolecular blades beter armor penetration than vibroblades, and they don't need bateries.

By Ken Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 05:21 pm: Edit

IMHO, Force swords do not fit with SFU. A good way to eliminate them is to say that while force field generators are available, they are too bulky and require too much power to be carried.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Androids:
====
michael john campbell July 21, 2002 - 08:24 pm
Has anyone considered ( maybe it's in the core rules )...the race of Android?
Dr Kirby, Andrea & Roc were all androids in one episode.
Rayna Kapec in Requiem for Methuselah was an Android and in I MUDD, Norman and several hundred others are Androids.
====
By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on July 21, 2002
GURPS already has this covered, with either the Vehicle-derived rules in GURPS Robots, or the template approach of the
cybershells in Transhuman Space. An artilce on using one or the other would make for a good thing in MP or a T&E book. I'd learn
towards cybershell approach.
=====
By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on July 22, 2002
I agree; GURPS covers them already.
All of the androids encountered were unique to some extent, so there would be no possibility of a "generic" android Racial
Template that would cover all of them.
===========
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on July 22, 2002
Might make a good feature in MPX to show a couple of them, print enough rules to be dangerous, give some sample characters, and
hype the idea of buying vehicles or cybershell.
=======
I could even see two "competing" articles, one using vehicles and the other Cybershell. Somebody want to work that up?